Kerala Court November 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V.J. Jose and Others Vs. State of Kerala rep. by Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2015
W.P.(C)No.33043/2011 is filed by eight petitioners, all of whom have retired from the service of the fifth respondent Bank on different dates beginning from 2008 till 2010. Their singular grievance is that Exhibit P3 pay revision with effect from 01.04.2008 has not been implemented, and the arrears have not been paid to them. 2. In W.P.(C)No.21370/2012, another batch of eight retired employees has come before this Court with a similar grievance. In so far as W.P.(C)No.10238/2015 is concerned, the first petitioner is the Employees' Union, which in fact represents the interest of all the present employees. The second petitioner is one of the employees who is also a constituent of the first petitioner. They too, like the petitioners in the other two writ petitions, have got a similar grievance. In fact, they have laid challenge against Exhibit P12 order (as shown in W.P.(C)No.33043/2011) issued by the Government purportedly exercising its powers under Section 101 of the Kerala Co-operativ...
Antony Das Vs. State represented by The Standing Counsel National Inve ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2015
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The question involved in this Criminal Appeal is whether the statement in the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it is, further submitted that the investigation of the case is being continued and further evidence is also being collected against the accused arrested as well as absconders would make the report other than a final report, enabling the accused to invoke the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for default bail. 2. Antony Das, the appellant, is accused No.4 in S.C.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam. The crime was originally registered at Nedumbassery Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was later transferred to the Crime Branch and they re-registered the case. Thereafter, Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the...
Meenachil Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Pala, Kottayam District, repre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2015
1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, which runs a classified three-star hotel, initially filed an application on 20.03.2013 before the 4th respondent Municipality seeking a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) to be placed before the Excise officials to obtain an FL-11 licence, it being a statutory mandate. When nothing had been heard from the authorities, the petitioner is also said to have submitted Ext.P2 application dated 16.04.2014. At any rate, on 25.04.2014, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P4 reply to the effect that the application had been placed before the Municipal Council, which would take a decision in the due course. Nevertheless, nothing happened thereafter. 2. Once again, the petitioner submitted another application, Ext.P3 dated 03.03.2015, reiterating its demand. Eventually, having been tired of waiting, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is eminently entitle...
Subaida Abdul Rasheed and Another Vs. State of Kerala represented by T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2015
Antony Dominic, J. 1. Petitioners in W.P(C).28432/13 are the appellants. They filed the writ petition seeking to declare that the act of the 6th respondent demolishing the portion of the building where they were residing, without any notice, is illegal and to direct the 6th respondent to restore the demolished portion of the residential building or to recover the costs of the same from the respondents. The writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal is filed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that according to the appellants, they are in possession of 12 cents of land in Survey No.680 and 683 of Vanchiyoor village, where they have constructed a building which has been numbered by the Corporation. Although the Corporation has described the structure as a shed and has disputed the assertion that the building was numbered by it, we do not think it necessary to resolve that controversy in this case. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the appellants are in possession of th...
K. Mahesh Alias Battampara Mahesh Vs. The Station House Officer, Kasar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2015
1. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 1048 of 2014 of Kasaragod Police Station. The petitioner was granted bail by the court below under proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code, imposing certain conditions. Thereafter, CMP No. 1789 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent before the court below praying for canceling the order of bail, stating that the petitioner violated the conditions of the order granting bail. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioner in Crime No.1048 of 2015 of Kasaragod Police Station are offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 449, 120(B), 202, 212, 153 (A) and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. 4. It appears that at the time of granting bail, the court below directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every Monday and Wednesday till the filing of the final report. It was further directed by the court below that the petitioner should not get involved in similar offenc...
Kochurani Thomas Vs. The State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2015
1. The petitioner is a widow of an employee who retired from the service of the fourth respondent Bank on 10.07.2004; he later died on 04.03.2009 while drawing a pension. 2. When the petitioner, being the wife of a deceased pensioner, applied for a family pension, the fourth respondent Bank rejected it through Exhibit P1, and the third respondent Pension Board through Exhibit P4. The reason assigned for denying the family pension to the petitioner is that Clause 23 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme ( the Scheme ) had been substituted with a new provision that does not contain any reference to persons drawing retirement pension. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all along persons who have been drawing superannuation pension and those drawing retirement pension had been treated equally and that all benefits including pensionary benefits were extended to them on...
The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2015
Surendra Mohan, J. 1. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed this Original Petition, challenging Ext.P4 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short) in O.A.No.2453 of 2013, evidenced herein by Ext.P4. As per Ext.P4, the KAT has found that, the petitioner was not entitled to conduct (suitability) test in respect of the physically handicapped candidates who are considered for appointment to posts identified by the Government as suitable for the appointment of such physically handicapped persons. 2. The Respondent was an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant/Auditor (Category No.436/2012) in the Secretariat/P.S.C/Local Fund Audit etc., pursuant to a notification issued by the petitioner inviting applications for the same. The Respondent is a person who is suffering from 40% orthopaedic disability. He had produced his disability certificate before the KAT along with the O.A. as Annexure-A1. The application was considered and he was includ...
Lalu Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2015
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner to set aside Annexure A2 and A3 orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the accused/appellant in C.C. No.1139/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1 Kanjirapappally alleging offences under Section 6(b) read with Section 24 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as COPTA Act) and Section 118 (i) of Kerala Police Act. 3. The case of the prosecution was that on 25.6.2013 at about 6.30 pm, the petitioner was found to be illegal in possession of prohibited tobacco articles for sale in a shop situated at Mundakkayam. 4. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kanjirappally where it was taken on file as CC No.1139/2013. Petitioner appeared and filed Crl.M.P. 4465/2014 for discharg...
The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Directorate, Thiruvananthapu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2015
Sri. V.S. Achuthanandan, the 8th respondent herein, filed a petition before the Director of Vigilance regarding the disclosure made by the 9th respondent herein Sri.Biju Ramesh in certain T.V. Channels that the 12th respondent herein Sri.K.M. Mani, the Finance Minister, has demanded Rs.5 crores as illegal gratification to facilitate the renewal of Bar licence, and obtained Rs.1 crore from the members of the Kerala Bar Hotel Owners' Association during the period between 20.03.2014 and 03.04.2014 and thereby, the 12th respondent committed criminal misconduct. 2. As the 6th respondent Sri.V.S. Sunilkumar, MLA has felt that the matter was not being properly investigated into, he approached this Court through W.P.(C)No.29856 of 2014 seeking the registration of a crime by the Vigilance Department. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 03.12.2014 with a direction to the Director of Vigilance to take a decision for registering an FIR or not in accordance with the provisions of the...
E.V. Latha, L.P.S.A., Akkiparamba U.P. School Vs. The Assistant Educat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2015
1. These writ petitions are respectively filed by the Manager and four teachers. The teachers are referred to by their names and the documents are referred to from W.P.(C) No.27736/10. 2. E.P.Sajith Kumar, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8287/12 was appointed on 5.6.2002 as an Assistant Teacher by Ext.P20 order ; whether such an appointment is as UPSA or LPSA is the crux of the controversy in the above cases. Subsequently, Latha E.V., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27736/10, was appointed as a LPSA on 31.5.2005 by Ext.P1 order which was approved w.e.f. 1.6.2005 onwards as per the endorsement of the Assistant Educational Officer (A.E.O.) seen in Ext.P1. Rajitha K., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35253/10 was appointed as a LPSA on 4.6.2007. Nisha M.Nair was appointed as a UPSA on 21.6.2002. The claim of Rajitha K. and Nisha M.Nair would depend on the resolution of the dispute arising between Sajith Kumar and Latha. 3. The brief facts, which led to the controversy, are that, in the year 2008-'0...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »